You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the claimant, an inmate, did not have a private right of action for negligent performance of a governmental function against the Board of Parole. Claimant alleged the board did not comply with the Executive Law by promulgating certain written procedures for assessing an inmate’s eligibility for parole:

Inasmuch as Executive Law article 12-B, which sets forth the procedures governing parole, does not expressly authorize a private right of action for claimant to recover civil damages for a violation of its provisions, recovery may only be obtained if a private right of action may be implied … . “One may be fairly implied when (1) [claimant] is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … . “If one of these prerequisites is lacking, the claim will fail” … .

We agree with the Court of Claims that a private action may not be fairly implied here. The Legislature provides recourse under CPLR article 78 for inmates to address perceived instances where the Board did not satisfy its statutory obligations in making parole release determinations… . As the Legislature has established procedures for review of parole release decisions, “it is fair to infer that had it intended to create a private right of action . . ., it would have specifically done so” … . Accordingly, permitting a private action here would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme … . Franza v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05641, Third Dept 8-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW  NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, PAROLE, NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (PAROLE, NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/PAROLE (NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION  NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))

POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sentencing court erred when it found that defendant was not eligible for youthful offender status. Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is not an armed felony:

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application for youthful offender status based upon its mistaken belief that he had been convicted of an armed felony, which required the court to find either mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed or that the defendant was only a minor participant in the crime … . The People correctly concede that the court erred in finding that the defendant had been convicted of an armed felony, since criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree pursuant to Penal Law 265.02(7) does not require proof that the firearm was loaded… . Thus, the defendant was eligible for youthful offender treatment without any finding of mitigation (see CPL 720.10[2]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court …, for a new determination of the defendant’s application for youthful offender status and resentencing thereafter. People v Loney, 2018 NY Slip Op 05606, Second Dept 8-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT))/ARMED FELONY (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE  (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT))

NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was separate and distinct from the shooting of the victim. Therefore the sentences for possession of a weapon and murder should not run consecutively:

… [T]he sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should not run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the conviction of murder in the second degree. “No evidence was adduced at trial to establish that the defendant’s possession of a gun was separate and distinct from his shooting of the victim” … . People v Ross, 2018 NY Slip Op 05610, Second Dept 8-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON  (SENTENCING, NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow a detective to identify the person depicted in a video as the defendant:

Generally, “lay witnesses must testify only to the facts and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts,” as it is the jury’s province “to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts” … . While, under the proper circumstances, the court has the discretion to allow a lay witness to express his or her opinion that an individual depicted in a surveillance video is the defendant … , here, there was no basis for concluding that the police detective was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether the defendant was depicted in the video …. The detective had arrested the defendant more than two weeks after the crime, and, at that time, briefly interviewed the defendant. “There was no evidence that [the] defendant had changed his appearance prior to trial, and the record is devoid of any other circumstances suggesting that the jury—which had ample opportunity to view [the] defendant—would be any less able than the detective to determine whether [the] defendant was, in fact, the individual depicted in the video” … . People v Reddick, 2018 NY Slip Op 05608, Second Dept 8-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant should have been given an opportunity to explain the reasons for his request to withdraw his plea and defense counsel should not have indicated he did not believe there was a basis for the request. Matter was remitted for consideration of the request with new counsel:

“The nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition of [motions to withdraw a plea of guilty] rest largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made” … . While in “rare instance[s]” a defendant will be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, often “a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … , and when a motion “is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry” … . Nevertheless, “[t]he defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to present his contentions and the court should [*2]be enabled to make an informed determination” … .

Moreover, “a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea” … . Counsel “takes a position adverse to his client,” depriving him or her of meaningful representation, “when stating that the defendant’s motion lacks merit” … . People v Caputo, 2018 NY Slip Op 05481, Second Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/PLEA, WITHDRAWAL OF  (DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

,

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the affidavit submitted in support of a warrant application for a DNA swab was insufficient and the motion to suppress should have been granted:

To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place'”… . Here, as the People correctly concede, the affidavit of the detective submitted in support of the search warrant application was conclusory and insufficient to establish probable cause to issue the warrant … . The detective stated that he believed evidence related to the victim’s murder may be found in the defendant’s saliva based on his interview of witnesses, information supplied to him by fellow police officers, and his review of police department records. However, the detective did not identify the witnesses or indicate what information he obtained from them, and did not specify what police department records he reviewed, or what information was contained in the records. People v Augustus, 2018 NY Slip Op 05480, Second Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DNA, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (DNA, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH WARRANT (DNA, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel by (1) the failure to move to suppress evidence found in a garbage bag outside defendant’s grandmother’s house, (2) the failure to move to suppress cell site location information (CSLI), and (3) the failure to object to the prosecutor’s mischaracterization of the the DNA evidence as a match.  Exigent circumstances justified the search of the garbage bag and the warrantless search of the cell-site records, and the prosecutorial misconduct was not flagrant and pervasive:

… [W]e conclude that, in light of the particular circumstances that led the police officers to the premises in search of a recently missing 17-year-old girl, that limited search (of the garbage bag) fell within the recognized emergency exception to the warrant requirement … . …

The Supreme Court recognized that “case-specific exceptions may support a warrantless search of an individual’s cell-site records under certain circumstances” … . “One well-recognized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment . . . Such exigencies include the need to . . . protect individuals who are threatened with imminent harm” … . …

The testimony at trial established that defendant could not be excluded as the source of the DNA found on the victim’s nail and that the chance of randomly selecting an unrelated individual as the source of the DNA was less than one in 114,000. Here, … the sole mischaracterization of the DNA evidence ” did not rise to the flagrant and pervasive level of misconduct [that] would deprive defendant of due process,’ “… . People v Lively, 2018 NY Slip Op 05413, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

ERROR FOR JUDGE TO EFFECTIVELY IGNORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN A JURY NOTE AND TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUMMATION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on two of three counts, determined the trial court abused its discretion when, in response to a jury note, it instructed the jury, for the first, that the intent to use a weapon may be presumed from possession of a weapon. The jury had asked specific questions concerning the issue of intent and the judge’s “presumption” instruction did not address those questions. Rather, the instruction allowed the jury to avoid the questions by applying the presumption:

The Criminal Procedure Law allows the jury to ask the court to clarify an instruction “[a]t any time during its deliberation” (CPL 310.30). Upon receiving such a request, the court must ” perform the delicate operation of fashioning a response which meaningfully answer[s] the jury’s inquiry while at the same time working no prejudice to the defendant’ ” … . “[T]he court has significant discretion in determining the proper scope and nature of the response”… . In determining whether the court’s response constituted an abuse of discretion, ” [t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury’s question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the [information] actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant’ ” … .

We conclude that the court failed in its duty to fashion a response that meaningfully answered the jury’s question and to avoid prejudicing defendant. The jury notes demonstrate that the jury had thoughtful questions about intent and was carefully weighing the conflicting testimony of the witnesses to determine whether and when defendant in fact formed the intent to use the gun unlawfully against another. The court, however, instructed the jury that defendant’s possession of the gun was presumptive evidence of intent to use it unlawfully, and that the jury may not need or want to consider additional evidence in light of that presumption. That answer was not responsive to either note. Moreover, the court’s response prejudiced defendant by introducing new principles of law after summations, when defense counsel no longer had the opportunity to argue that, despite the presumption, the evidence established that defendant lacked the requisite intent … . People v Wood, 2018 NY Slip Op 05422, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ERROR FOR JUDGE TO EFFECTIVELY IGNORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN A JURY NOTE AND TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUMMATION (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ERROR FOR JUDGE TO EFFECTIVELY IGNORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN A JURY NOTE AND TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUMMATION (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY NOTES  (CRIMINAL LAW, ERROR FOR JUDGE TO EFFECTIVELY IGNORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN A JURY NOTE AND TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUMMATION (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial was not violated by his absence from an in camera interview with a sworn juror about possible disqualification:

The defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial was not violated by his absence from an in camera interview with a sworn juror, conducted in the presence of the prosecutor and defense counsel, to determine whether there was a possible juror disqualification. Although a defendant has a statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial … , this right is only a qualified right where the proceedings involved are ancillary … . A conference to determine whether a sworn juror should be excluded … is an ancillary proceeding … . As such, the defendant’s presence is required only if it could have had “a substantial effect on [his or her] ability to defend against the charges” … , or “where defendant has something valuable to contribute” …  Given that the issue of whether a seated juror is grossly unqualified is, generally, a legal determination… , and, given the circumstances presented here, there is no basis to conclude that the defendant’s presence at the in camera interview would have had a substantial effect on the defendant’s ability to defend against the charges, or that the defendant would have made a valuable contribution to the proceeding … . People v Robinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 05496, Second Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/MATERIAL STAGE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/JUROR DISQUALIFICATION DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))

,

OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the officer who stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger had a reasonable basis to frisk the defendant for safety. The frisk resulted in the seizure of a handgun. At the time of the frisk, the officer knew the defendant was out past his parole curfew and suspected defendant had violated his conditions of parole by consuming alcohol. In addition, defendant was riding in an unregistered car and the driver did not have a license:

A suspect’s status as a parolee is a relevant factor to consider when evaluating the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure  … , particularly where, as here, the officer had reason to believe that defendant was then and there violating both the curfew and alcohol conditions of his parole. The hour was late and the driver was driving an unregistered vehicle without a license. Defendant’s evasive, if not flippant, “sales” response as to why he was on parole, coupled with his repeated denial of alcohol use, heightened the volatility of the situation. Cumulatively, these factors validate County Court’s conclusion that the officer had a reasonable basis to conduct the frisk to assure his own safety … . People v Carey, 2018 NY Slip Op 05376, Third Dept 7-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/STREET STOPS (FRISK, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/PAT DOWN SEARCH  (OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PAT DOWN SEARCH, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (PAT DOWN SEARCH, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/FRISK (PAT DOWN SEARCH, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy